Member Groups

Energy, Utilities, Telecommunications, and TransportationThe newsletter of the ISBA’s Section on Energy, Utilities, Telecommunications & Transportation Law

Browse articles by year: 2014 (4) 2013 (2) 2012 (3) 2011 (14) 2010 (7) 2009 (9) 2008 (5) 2007 (9) 2006 (8) 2005 (11) 2004 (12) 2003 (13) 2002 (20) 2001 (24) 2000 (15) 1999 (8)

Newsletter articles from 2011

3rd District Appellate Court affirms $23 million personal injury jury verdict against broker C.H. Robinson By William D. Brejcha June 2011 The Sperl v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. decision is significant to the extent it holds broker Robinson responsible for the tort of a driver for one of its contracting carriers.
9th Circuit rejects L.A. port’s owner operator prohibition By William D. Brejcha November 2011 A summary of the recent case of American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles.
Broker wins summary judgment in injury suit By William D. Brejcha March 2011 A look at the case of Brown v. Termain.
Court awards summary judgment for cargo damage and attorney fees in cargo litigation By William D. Brejcha October 2011 A summary of the recent case of Contessa Premium Foods, Inc. v. CST Lines, Inc.
District court refuses to reconsider Carmack preemption of cargo claim By William D. Brejcha November 2011   In Personal Communications Devices v. Platinum Cargo Logistics, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of a partial grant of summary judgment in cargo claim litigation.
District court sustains freight forwarder/motor contract carrier’s limited liability defense By William D. Brejcha June 2011 A summary of the recent OneBeacon Insurance v. Haas Industries, Inc. case.
Material deviation: A fallacious argument against limitations of motor carrier liability By Craig J. Helmreich and Nathaniel G. Saylor April 2011 Motor carriers and their counsel should consider contract provisions closely—particularly security provisions—and analyze the potential for exposure to claims of material deviation that could be used to avoid bargained for limitations of carrier liability.
Motor carrier defeats HIV-positive driver’s ADA and related claims By William D. Brejcha June 2011 The case of EEOC v. C.R. England, Inc. will be helpful to motor carriers and others as it answers some fundamental questions that arise from the ADA statute which have not been previously addressed in detail by the courts.
New Jersey District Court rejects material deviation claim By William D. Brejcha September 2011 The court noted that PMT needed to show UPS’ intentional destruction or theft of the cargo for the liability limit to be ignored and no such evidence had been presented.
New York District Court holds broker not entitled to summary judgment on Carmack cargo claim By William D. Brejcha March 2011 This decision is just one more of the recent decisions where the broker's methods of operation have left it exposed to carrier liabilities to which brokers are not ordinarily exposed.
Owner operator not separately liable for cargo damage under state law By William D. Brejcha September 2011 The court found the owner operator lease between Elmore and L&O did not create any separate Elmore duty in tort to Merchants. The action against Elmore.
Res ipsa and wandering cows By William D. Brejcha September 2011 Under the res ipsa theory, the facts at issue must be so egregious that the only way the crash in issue could have occurred would be if someone had been negligent. 
Seventh Circuit vacates FMCSA EOBR rule By William D. Brejcha October 2011 With this court ruling, it is anticipated FMCSA may need to restart the entire mandatory EOBR rulemaking process and rewrite the rule or issue some supplemental ruling that addressed the harassment issue and other issues that have been raised in evaluating the new rule.
Southern District Of California finds home delivery drivers to be independent contractors, not employees By William D. Brejcha June 2011 The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California analyzed each of the ten "common law factors" relating to the drivers’ employment/contractor status, ultimately concluding that plaintiffs’ evidence was insufficient to overcome the Georgia law presumption of independent contractor status for the plaintiff drivers.